Israel’s Big Lie of “Self-Defence”

[sparky]

There hasn't been an Israeli, or a Jew, or a "Zionist" in Gaza since 2005. So what you mean, is that the very idea of a "Zionist" is a threat? Hmmmm...there's a word for that.

Oh?
now they don't even exist...?

~S~

 

[Billo_Really]

Cracks me up when antisemites hide behind 'It's not about the Jews, it's about Israel'

I notice you are too pussy to answer the question, "Why would I hate Jews?" You got the balls to answer that?

 

[Billo_Really]

It wasn't Israel's, wasn't Jordan's, wasn't Egypt's, wasn't Turkey's.

Who did it belong to?

Not Israel. That's all you need to know.

 

[Billo_Really]

Dude, did you get some under cooked Jew baby? Indigestion?

Okay, so you're a troll? Trolls don't answer direct questions. Or are you too pussy to answer the question?

 

[Rawley]

I notice you are too pussy to answer the question, "Why would I hate Jews?" You got the balls to answer that?

I already did, pussy.

 

[Billo_Really]

All the fault of Hamas. You keep leaving that part out.

You are so pussy, you can't accept responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Blaster]

Okay, are you too pussy to answer the question?

Well I am a cat.

 

[Billo_Really]

Funny lie

I see you are too pussy to comment on Ahad Ha'am's comments. Don't worry, all of you Zionists are too pussy to comment on that.

 

[HeyNorm]

Okay, so you're a troll? Trolls don't answer direct questions. Or are you too pussy to answer the question?

You want me to answer why YOU THINK SOMETHING?

You are warped

 

[HeyNorm]

You are so pussy, you can't accept responsibility for your own actions.

Meow, lil fella, meeeeeooooowwwwww

 

[sparky]

"Why would I hate Jews?"

Trolls don't answer direct questions.

all of you Zionists are too pussy to comment on that.

They can't separate Judaism from Zionism Billo

Mainstream media wants us all to think they're the same

the Zionists agenda, cloaked in the guise of bigotry

Put it down, and you're a Jew hating anti-semite

OY!

~S~

 

[surada]

OK. And you think this somehow supports BIllo's antisemitic nonsense that the Jews are nazis?

He never said anything like that. He doesn't support the Israeli hard right government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not Israel. That's all you need to know.

Israel didn't take it from another country.
I guess they'll keep it.

 

[Billo_Really]

"According to IHL"...

You are not going to get away with that crap with me. Name a document, any document, any part of "IHL" which says what you claim it says. Be specific.

I'll give you a hint. Where is the boundary between Egypt and Israel? Where is the boundary between Jordan and Israel? Which documents legally provide for those boundaries? How were those boundaries determined?

Israel has not only the best sovereign claim to those territories, but the ONLY sovereign claim to those territories. There is no one else who has a claim to those territories. (Golan Heights excepted).

Occupation and international humanitarian law​

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”.
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Now STFU!

 

[HeyNorm]

They can't separate Judaism from Zionism Billo

Mainstream media wants us all to think they're the same

the Zionists agenda, cloaked in the guise of bigotry

Put it down, and you're a Jew hating anti-semite

OY!

~S~

Oh, I see, raping Jewish women, making them watch and listen to their babies scream in agonizing pain (I can’t imagine the horror in that, can you?) while being cooked to death in an oven. Or raping a woman, dragging her dead body through the streets while the poor innocent citizens spit on her and mutilate her before finally cutting off her head, is considered normal to you animals.

If it were reversed, I’d be calling for the heads of the leaders of Israel and the soldiers that did such horrific acts, and if they hid behind Jewish citizens? Oh well, those deaths would be on Israel.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Occupation and international humanitarian law​

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”.
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

Now STFU!

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

Sounds serious!
What did the UN do to Jordan and Egypt when they occupied that territory?

 

[Shusha]

Occupation and international humanitarian law​

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

Exactly. I'm not sure why you think this supports your point, rather than mine. This completely confirms what I have been arguing. The territory of Gaza is not actually under the authority of a hostile army (Israeli military control). Disengagement of all Israeli military occurred in 2005. There is no authority within Gaza by the Israeli government or military which has been established or can be exercised, since 2005. Israel has absolutely no control over any normative government functions in Gaza.

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

There are no international hostilities. Peace treaties pertaining to the areas of Gaza and Judea and Samaria exist and are legally valid. Peace treaties END THE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT. Also, in no way a small point, neither Egypt nor Jordan had an possible legal claim to those territories, so not only IS there no occupation, there never WAS an occupation.

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

There is not, and there never was, an occupation. Anything written after this line is therefore entirely irrelevant. I'm going to address one anyway.

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

The claim to Israel's sovereignty over the territory in question has nothing to do with the (non-existent) occupation. The claim to Israel's sovereignty precedes the 1967 war. The claim to Israel's sovereignty arises from the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. Nothing has changed any of that right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Why? Because the 1948 war was an invasion of foreign States (Egypt and Jordan particularly) into territory under Israel's sovereignty to which these States (Egypt and Jordan) had NO VALID CLAIM. The reclamation of these territories from States who had no valid claim, is not an occupation. You can not occupy territory that you have sovereign claim to, especially when you are the ONLY one with a sovereign legal claim to those territories. You can not "occupy" your own territory.

 

[Shusha]

I want to add one other thing specifically to this conversation. I am NOT, in any way, suggesting that all the territory must remain exclusively Israel. I have always advocated for the self-determination of BOTH people. For decades, I have advocated this.** My assertion of the legal facts is not intended to diminish the rights of the Palestinian people as shared sovereigns in this land.

In order to achieve peace, we must leave behind the rhetoric, the falsehoods, the demonizing language. Being locked into ideas like "occupation" and "1967 'borders'" creates cages which prevent solutions. The border between Israel and a future Palestine can be ANYWHERE.

**Note though, that the events of October 7 have drastically, irrevocably changed my perspective and I fear that peace is unreachable for the foreseeable future.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see you are too pussy to comment on Ahad Ha'am's comments. Don't worry, all of you Zionists are too pussy to comment on that.

I can't fix your stupidity so I just laugh at you.

 

[Billo_Really]

You want me to answer why YOU THINK SOMETHING?

You are warped

No, I want you to answer why you said something.